Can it really be called a debate if no one is listening to contrary arguments?
Seems to me the ID crowd have already answered any question a rational debater can give them, simply by claiming some sort of divine right.

Doesn't seem to matter how many times you try to explain what science is to these people, they just ignore it and carry on._________________Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.....

I have to say that this is possibly the most civilized ID discussion I have ever seen. It's good to see. My younger brother and I have worked this topic over several times (we love a good friendly debate), and Dennis you sound just like him! He is the religious one, our older brother is the atheist, and I am somewhere in between. We are all pretty well read and very opinionated, so our theological discussions can get interesting. I feel fortunate that we are able to do this with this, and many other controversial subjects without killing each other, or even raising our voices. None of us ever expects to change the other's minds, it's more of an exercise in reason; and invariably, we all end up feeling we've gotten some point across even if we don't agree on the bigger picture. We must have inherited our capacity for logical argument from our mother, because my dad has none. The JFK assassination has been a taboo subject at his house since 1991. The man is intractable!

Anyway, please drop in and chat with us again, leave us some more looooney links, and perhaps even (dare I say) become a kNI!ght and start shrubbing yourself!

Sir Hamster, I unfortunately have very good seats to this silliness in Kansas. I live in Kansas City, Missouri (about 8 blocks from the state line) but I lived in KS for a few years and still work there. There's a book called What's the Matter with Kansas? - How Conservatives Won the Heart of America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas that gives a backdrop to the scene that's going on there. The liberal collegetown of Lawrence has even felt the impact. Last year, one of their professors (chairman of the religious studies department) was attacked on a back road on the outskirts of town, and beaten up by a couple good ole boys in a pickup truck. All over some remarks that he'd made on the internet about an ID class he was about to teach. They ended up cancelling the class.

This debate contains many of the hallmarks of the traditional church/state issues like school prayer or "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. But it's much more interesting than that. On its face, ID is a pretty good story. So is evolution. It's possible to believe either, both, or neither. The important words there are possible and believe. Both are possible, and at this time there is no way to prove the verity of either. Yes, one is based in science and the other in religion, but ID more or less borrows the science from evolution to validate itself and fills in the blanks with a creationist story. This requires belief, or faith, but then again, so does evolution. There are a lot of gaps in what we can prove, and a leap of faith must be made to believe that story as well.

I think that the shortcomings of evolution theory should be noted when taught, and other theories or possible explanations touched upon (planted by aliens?!?). If for nothing else, then for the sake of honesty; however, I do not believe that any of the others, including intelligent design should be taught as science curriculum. Here's what should happen:

KWSN Science Teacher:

Quote:

Hi, welcome to the "Where did we come from?" unit of this class.

Since we're not entirely sure about the answer to that question, here's what we've got so far: It was hot, stuff started growing, stuff started swimming then crawling, then walking, then driving! (see diagram).

Yes, yes, Johnson, admittedly we still cannot provide concrete evidence to make the enormous jump between your uncle and feral cats, but until we can come up with something better, it's all we've got to go on.

Yes, seriously, Perkins, that's really it.

Well, I suppose we could just make something up, but then it wouldn't be science, would it?

Yes, that's really the best we could come up with. Look, don't take my word for it, check out some of the other looney ideas that other people have come up with. See? They're just as looney as we are, in fact they even quoted us there in a couple places. We're a source!

Well, I already told you, I DON'T KNOW

Yeah? Well I don't see you contributing any Nobel prize winning solutions to this problem, Zimmerman.

Oh, no, do chime in if you have any of your own, I'm sure everyone here would love to hear what you have to say.

Ah, Vin Diesel, Grace Jones, 2 ducks and a time machine... very interesting theory. I'll have to run that past my colleag... hey, how the hell do you know who Grace Jones is, anyway? Has she done anything since that Conan sequel back in the 80's? That James Bond movie maybe, but I think that was around the same time. Weird.

Ok, anyway class, you now know as much as the rest of us about where we came from. Do what you like wiith it, just make sure that any work you do remains open source so we can alter later if it doesn't work.

[bell ringing, students stampeding towards the door]

We are obviously still open to ideas, so feel free to stop by with any more suggestions you might have!!!... Vin Diesel... I better write that down..

I think a lot of people get caught up in the improbability of it all and therefore must assign a higher power to make it seem plausible.

The point is, no matter how remote the odds of us springing into existence, it has happened. If it hadn't we wouldn't be sitting here wondering how unlikely the whole scenerio is.

Works for many of the universes great mysteries. "If the laws of physics weren't balanced just so, the slightest perterbation and it all falls apart..." Well, they do work just so, if not see above.

I'm not saying there isn't a higher power but if there is, evolution is the tool that was used to create mankind. And for the record, the two theories are not at all incompatible._________________A Shrubbery for Prez. Let's put more bushes in the whitehouse.

So, posit a system of alternate universes, each with slightly different physical constants. One of them has the proper "mix", and thats where we were able to live... if we happened to evolve in time. If something is improbable, it takes a few tries before it happens. Maybe a lot of tries. Maybe more than could happen in the lifetime of the universe.
Maybe numerous universes with the proper mix are needed, and just one of them got evolutionally lucky.

At some point though, that theory requires more complexity than the "intelligent design" theory does, and the simpler theory is correct.

Is a googleplex-plex of alternate universes more complex than an infinite intelligent God? No. But it is a lot harder to understand._________________9.0 Giggly hertzes Folding!
Go Diskless..Pure computing elegance, no frills
The brain I'm wearing makes me eat chocolate and cry!!
Something Completely different